Steve Forbes: Why it's important for Congress to at least listen to Israel's leader

The speech Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is slated to give to a joint session of Congress Tuesday is one of the most critical of recent times. It concerns not only the very existence of his nation, but also the terribly real possibility of nuclear holocaust in the foreseeable future. Our own security is at stake as well: Iran is developing intercontinental missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons that will reach our shores.

Iran’s ability to not only attack, but also to intimidate other countries into meeting its demands would increase exponentially with its acquisition of nuclear capabilities. Imagine Tehran “suggesting” to European countries how to treat their growing Muslim populations? Sharia law, anyone?

pouncer saidAs a friend pointed out, is there anyone who thinks Netanyahu knows something about Iran that President Obama and his advisers don't know? Do we really need this idiot holding up one of his Daffy Duck cartoons (probably to 28 standing ovations) as if he hasn't been exposed time and again as a liar and a fraud?https://youtube.com/watch?v=odws5sg6dio

The point isn't whether Netanyahu knows more than Obama and advisors. The point is Netanyahu is more likely to give us a different perspective versus that Obama and Kerry, who may try and sell something that may be bad for the west. (You've been exposed many times as a pro-Iranian account - Iran the biggest supporter of world-wide terrorism. Lacking human rights, executes gays, etc. - Are you a single person working for Iran or an Iranian account team that manages the RJ and other internet accounts?)

And I find it ironic that Europe's "growing muslim population" is nothing but the result of years of leftist think tanks and pressure groups, many led by Jewish politicians pushing the agenda of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

The greatest supporter of Islamic immigration into the UK is a a man from a Jewish family called Peter Mandelson:

AyaTrollah pouncer saidAs a friend pointed out, is there anyone who thinks Netanyahu knows something about Iran that President Obama and his advisers don't know?

Indeed, we know what everyone is going to say before they do and it's not like anyone knows something more about anything. There simply shouldn't be any more speeches before congress. Let them just vote and be done with it.

AaronH20P saidAnd I find it ironic that Europe's "growing muslim population" is nothing but the result of years of leftist think tanks and pressure groups, many led by Jewish politicians pushing the agenda of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

The greatest supporter of Islamic immigration into the UK is a a man from a Jewish family called Peter Mandelson

Oh, dear, sounds like the world Jewish conspiracy is at it again, trying to undermine Europe.

Or perhaps that Lord Mandelson is "from a Jewish family" (only his father was Jewish, meaning that by Jewish law he himself isn't Jewish) is completely irrelevant?

Likewise even if what you say about "leftist think tanks" is true, many are NOT "led by Jewish politicians". Why do those Anglo Saxons, Christian or Atheist leaders get off the hook, along with their entire ethnic group or religion (or lack of)?

pouncer saidAs a friend pointed out, is there anyone who thinks Netanyahu knows something about Iran that President Obama and his advisers don't know? Do we really need this idiot holding up one of his Daffy Duck cartoons (probably to 28 standing ovations) as if he hasn't been exposed time and again as a liar and a fraud?https://youtube.com/watch?v=odws5sg6dio

Now that the speech has been delivered, I can't help but wonder if those who objected to it so vociferously have anything intelligent to say about the speech itself (rather than relegating themselves to their pathetic and impotent attacks on Netanyahu and Israel).

He offers no alternative path. Iran is a signatory to the NPT which allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The only alternative to an Iran not willing to give up its rights under this treaty is to go to war. I'm sick of right-wingers who can't wait to go to war again. I bet no one here is planning on volunteering for this war but they're brave boys urging war for others to fight. Obama is trying to find a negotiated path. The Repukes are trying to use Israel to distract from their failed attempts in Congress. And in the process putting Israel in great harm.

Destinharbor said[Steve Forbes] offers no alternative path. Iran is a signatory to the NPT which allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The only alternative to an Iran not willing to give up its rights under this treaty is to go to war. I'm sick of right-wingers who can't wait to go to war again. I bet no one here is planning on volunteering for this war but they're brave boys urging war for others to fight. Obama is trying to find a negotiated path. The Repukes are trying to use Israel to distract from their failed attempts in Congress. And in the process putting Israel in great harm.

Well, Steve Forbes may be dealing with a lot of demons. Not the least of which is his late father Malcolm, who founded their fortune.

I used to ride a motorcycle with Malcolm, back in the 1970s, whenever I returned to my home State of New Jersey. Malcolm had bought a BMW motorcycle dealership, along with other European brands, owned by Hank Slegers, a German immigrant.

I used to love hearing Hank say to me, in his heavily accented German: "BMWs are the Rolls Royce of motorcycles." BMW cars were still a rarity on US roads at that time, just little boxy things.Their motorcycles were the principle way you'd see the iconic airplane propellor badge in the US.

When I was ready to buy a BMW bike Malcolm Forbes had bought the business and relocated it, renaming it "Slegers-Forbes". And he used to organize bike rides that originated at the new store, usually on a Saturday morning.

Malcolm was a terrible rider. At stop lights or signs he would sometimes fall over, and we'd have to lift his bike back up. He didn't actually ride any of the brands his store sold, but rather a "Clymer Munch Mammoth 4", a custom bike based on a German model. Modified and sold in the US by Floyd Clymer, an early motorcycle activist and magazine publisher. Later Malcolm got a big Harley, another brand he didn't sell, notable for press coverage of him taking Elizabeth Taylor for rides on it. But by then I wasn't riding with his group anymore.

Riding alongside him were these youngish leather bois from New York City, just a bit nelly, that a lot of us wondered about. A few times we ended up at Malcolm's home in Hunterdon County, NJ, where we were graciously treated to refreshments. I think I saw Steve there once, but I'm not sure, I wasn't introduced.

So I dunno about Steve Forbes. Maybe the spoiled kid of a rich entrepreneur, with issues about his father that extend beyond simply not being able to equal his dad's success. Perhaps regarding questions about Malcolm's sexual orientation, which I wondered about myself, with all these nelly bois who surrounded him. In any case, I haven't found any of Steve's past or present political comments to have any merit.

Destinharbor saidIran is a signatory to the NPT which allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The only alternative to an Iran not willing to give up its rights under this treaty is to go to war. I'm sick of right-wingers who can't wait to go to war again.

No one is asking Iran to give up its rights, only to conform to its obligations.Not to mention that it has been repeatedly caught cheating:

The option is rarely between going to war or not going to war but a question of when you go to war and on whose terms. Had Chamberlain and others gone to war in 1938, dozens of millions of people who lost their lives in WW II might have been spared. By late 1939, it was too little, too late. (Contemplate further that had hitler not turned on the USSR, y'all might be speaking German and I'd be dead or rather never born cause my parents would have been murdered.)

A more modern criticism is the negotiated "deal" that was reached with North Korea to prevent them from going nuclear but actually enabled them to do so under the table.

Iran has been repeatedly caught trying to go nuclear. Undeclared sites, enrichment centrifuges, refusing access to international inspectors (as required by the NPT), etc. Their programs have been set-back by covert operations (from computer viruses to mysterious explosions and targeting key individuals).

No one is pushing for a war, that is not even on the agenda. No more than there was a war when Iraq's embryonic nuclear site was destroyed, or Syria's recent attempt. (Iran's is better defended and it will be more complicated. It may even no longer be possible to completely destroy it, but that isn't a requirement.)

The controversy is about the "deal" being too lenient and having too many conformance loopholes (like NK's). It is the heavy sanctions (AyaTrollah pouncer illogically and hypocritically calls them "tantamount to an act of war") that brought Iran to the table. The pressure is on them - they need a deal more than we do - and an agreement with teeth that will prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons is achievable. Let's not find out in a few years that we settled for a "Munich Agreement" instead.

Destinharbor saidIran is a signatory to the NPT which allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The only alternative to an Iran not willing to give up its rights under this treaty is to go to war. I'm sick of right-wingers who can't wait to go to war again.

No one is asking Iran to give up its rights, only to conform to its obligations.Not to mention that it has been repeatedly caught cheating:

The option is rarely between going to war or not going to war but a question of when you go to war and on whose terms. Had Chamberlain and others gone to war in 1938, dozens of millions of people who lost their lives in WW II might have been spared. By late 1939, it was too little, too late. (Contemplate further that had hitler not turned on the USSR, y'all might be speaking German and I'd be dead or rather never born cause my parents would have been murdered.)

A more modern criticism is the negotiated "deal" that was reached with North Korea to prevent them from going nuclear but actually enabled them to do so under the table.

Iran has been repeatedly caught trying to go nuclear. Undeclared sites, enrichment centrifuges, refusing access to international inspectors (as required by the NPT), etc. Their programs have been set-back by covert operations (from computer viruses to mysterious explosions and targeting key individuals).

No one is pushing for a war, that is not even on the agenda. No more than there was a war when Iraq's embryonic nuclear site was destroyed, or Syria's recent attempt. (Iran's is better defended and it will be more complicated. It may even no longer be possible to completely destroy it, but that isn't a requirement.)

The controversy is about the "deal" being too lenient and having too many conformance loopholes (like NK's). It is the heavy sanctions (AyaTrollah pouncer illogically and hypocritically calls them "tantamount to an act of war") that brought Iran to the table. The pressure is on them - they need a deal more than we do - and an agreement with teeth that will prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons is achievable. Let's not find out in a few years that we settled for a "Munich Agreement" instead.

Thanks for an excellent post setting that guy straight, but I doubt it will have much an effect on the left-winger.

socalfitness saidThe point isn't whether Netanyahu knows more than Obama and advisors. The point is Netanyahu is more likely to give us a different perspective versus that Obama and Kerry, who may try and sell something that may be bad for the west.

Netanyahu has been saying the same war-mongering things since 1996, to no avail. How many times does someone have to be wrong before people stop listening to him?

socalfitness saidThe point isn't whether Netanyahu knows more than Obama and advisors. The point is Netanyahu is more likely to give us a different perspective versus that Obama and Kerry, who may try and sell something that may be bad for the west.

Netanyahu has been saying the same war-mongering things since 1996, to no avail. How many times does someone have to be wrong before people stop listening to him?

If he wants a war, let him fire the first shot.

How exactly has he been wrong? Specifically, are you believing Iran that they don't want the bomb. Do you have some special insight to know they were only kidding when they said they wanted to annihilate Israel? Do you have good reason to trust Obama when it comes to foreign policy? Has he been right so many times with his various decisions?

The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime, or its despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.

I believe the international community must reinvigorate its efforts to isolate these regimes, and prevent them from acquiring atomic power. The United States and Israel have been at the forefront of this effort, but we can and must do much more. Europe and the countries of Asia must be made to understand that it is folly, nothing short of folly, to pursue short-time material gain while creating a long-term existential danger for all of us.

Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.

19 years ago, but the "goal was getting extremely close."Ignore the Chicken Hawk!

coolarmydude said19 years ago, but the "goal was getting extremely close."Ignore the Chicken Hawk!

Maybe we should also ignore some of the experts. What do they know?

David Albright, a physicist and founder and president of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security, gives a scientific and foreign policy perspective on the talks in Geneva:

2013:British and American intelligence sources think Iran is about a year away from having enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb, and rather further from mastering the technologies to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit into a missile. But David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security, thinks that by mid-2014 Iran will have the capacity to produce enough fissile material for a single bomb in one or two weeks, should it choose to do so.http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-17

2013...it would take them longer to build the bomb itself. Estimates vary. It’s a murky area to make assessments in. It can vary from a couple of months to a year.

coolarmydude said19 years ago, but the "goal was getting extremely close."

Perhaps had nothing been done about it they would have achieved that goal by now. Except that the Iranian nuclear program has faced many "accidents", from the stuxnet virus to plant/field explosions and the elimination of key players.

No one is asking Iran to give up its rights, only to conform to its obligations

AyaTrollah pouncer saidRight, and nuclear-weapon states aren't likewise "obligated" by Article 6 of the NPT to eliminate their existing stockpiles? The NPT was signed nearly a half-century ago, and the quid-pro-quo was that non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons while the nuclear states agreed to get rid of what they had. The necessity of action on this front (as opposed to endless "negotiating") was affirmed by the World Court in 1996.

False on each point.

1. There is no "quid-pro-quo" in such a Treaty.

2. Article 6 states:

|| Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.

Note that the reference is to move toward a new, separate, "treaty on general and complete disarmament".

3. The ICJ, in an advisory (non-binding) decision also noted that there is no binding time-frame for full disarmament.

4. Alleged non-compliance by other countries is a diversion but does not obviate Iran from compliance.

|| The February [2013] [IAEA] report noted that Iran has continued to deny the IAEA access to the military site at Parchin. Citing evidence from satellite imagery that "Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments". Such installation could be an indicator of nuclear weapons development. The report expresses concern that changes taking place at the Parchin military site might eliminate evidence of past nuclear activities....

AyaTrollah pouncer saidit's unclear why a subscriber of the "MAD" view that "nukes kept the peace" during the Cold War, to quote you directly from another forum, would have so many misgivings about that policy today.

He's not too bright, is he? I've noted repeatedly that it is Iranian leaders who disregard MAD and have stated that a first strike is possible because Israel could be destroyed while Iran would at worst lose a few cities. The calculus changes when you have leaders who don't mind sacrificing their own people or cities for the eternal glory of achieving a sacred goal.

Whether this "pouncer" profile is an Iranian agent or just a useless idiot is open to debate, but keep in mind that he also saw no reason to protest the 2009 election and relies upon and frequently sources PressTV, the official Iranian news source - controlled by the regime.

AyaTrollah pouncer saidThe only source for this story [Purim] is the Bible, which in fact documents not the genocide of Jews by Persians, but the genocide of Persians by Jews (75,000, according to the Book of Esther).

Not much of a surprise from a troll obsessed by his hatred not just of Jews but all things Jewish, including the Jewish state, the Hebrew language, Judaism the religion, Jewish history, the holidays of Hanukkah and now Purim.